2016, 04-19 Study Session MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL
MEETING STUDY SESSION
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley,Washington
April 19,2016
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Rod Higgins, Mayor Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
Ed Pace, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Sam Wood, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks&Rec Director
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tern Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. First Reading Ordinance 16-005, LTGO Bond for City Hall -Mark Calhoun
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded, to advance Ordinance 16-005 to a second reading. Mr. Calhoun went over the background of
the idea of a proposed city hall,which gained momentum early 2015 with the purchase of 3.38 acres at the
former University City Mall site;he briefly went through the history of events since that land purchase,and
mentioned that the bid opening for City Hall bids will be this Thursday; said we anticipate project financing
of about$14.4 million overall with $6.3 million covered with cash set aside for this project; that the bond
proceeds would be repaid over a thirty-year period in equal annual installments; that for the financing, a
bond ordinance must be considered and adopted, and that bond counsel and our financial advisor will be
assisting us through this process.
Mr. Calhoun introduced Bond Counsel Deanna Gregory with Pacific Law Group, and member of the
financial group Lindsey Sovde with Piper Jaffrey. Ms. Gregory went over some of the highlights of the
bond ordinance, including that the second reading would be held during the May 10 Council meeting; said
if all parameters can be met all will go as planned, and if not, they would come back to Council; said the
ordinance authorizes all new money for the City Hall facility, payable from the City's general fund; said
May 19 is the day of the pricing when the interest rates for the bonds will be set,and the contract with D.A.
Davidson will be executed;said for the second reading they will also have a copy of the preliminary official
statement, which is the offering document to be used by the underwriter to market the bonds to potential
investors, and under federal security law,the City would take ownership of this statement; said a question
arose the last time about federal filing requirements for bonds to be issued,and she explained that to be tax
exempt, a form must be filed with the IRS; said her company will file that document.Ms. Sovde explained
that as financial advisor, her company has the fiduciary responsibility to the City to make sure the bond
prices fairly and all transactions are completed; said since the last time they met in March the interest rates
dropped by another 25 base points, which is very favorable, making the interest for thirty-year bonds at
about 3.10%; she said the interest rates won't be locked down until the bonds are priced May 19 so the rate
will likely change, but it is trending in the right direction.
Council Study Session:04-19-2016 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council:05-10-2016
Mr. Calhoun stated that the bid opening is this Thursday, and next Tuesday Council will have an
administrative report on that bid opening,with the bid award scheduled for the special May 3 meeting; said
at that May 3 meeting,the bids will be presented with base bids and eight alternatives; that he is confident
the base bid will be within the $14.4 million, but the entire project cost depends on the alternates chosen;
he said he will have a spreadsheet on the screens to show how each alternate would impact the estimated
bond payment and the total cost of the project. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were
offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried.
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
2. Public Safety Ad Hoc Committees—Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell introduced Center for Justice Executive Director Rick Eichstaedt. Mr. Driskell
mentioned there are also some guests in the audience interested in tonight's discussion, and he introduced
District Court Presiding Judge Walker, Judge Maurer, and District Court Clerk John Ritter. Mr. Driskell
explained that this topic has evolved over time with several suggestions from Council and the community,
and that he and Mr. Eichstaedt have had several discussions; and said if Council feels there are items not
addressed, or where Council wants further discussion,to please let him know as he encourages and urges
such discussion.Concerning a committee,Mr.Driskell suggested it would be advantageous to identify what
Council wants covered within such a committee's mission, and similarly if Council wants to expand
something in the future,that too is possible provided anything done is consistent with state regulations for
the Council/Manager form of government in RCW 35A, as we would want to segregate policy for those
things clearly handled by Council,with those things clearly handled by a City Manager. Mr.Driskell noted
that additional concerns mentioned earlier include the topic of additional liability for the City; he said we
have contracted with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, making that an independent contractor
relationship,which means we are limited in terms of what we can tell the service provider concerning what
they can or should do or not do; said we are paying for the services so we don't control the manner, as we
are paying for the end result; and said we do not want to breach that independent contractor relationship.
Mr. Driskell said that as shown on page 3 of his Request for Council Action (RCA) form, he and Mr.
Eichstaedt have not come to any conclusions when it comes to rendering opinions as to the adequacy of
any report from the CAB(Citizens Advisory Board);and believe more time is needed to research this issue,
including whether this could result in additional liability for either the County or the City, and whether
doing so could breach the independent contractor relationship. Mr. Driskell stated that staff already does a
considerable amount of contractor oversight on all public safety contracts, and that the City's
Administrative Analysists Koudelka and Pietro pay particular attention to services provided to ensure we
are getting the services we are paying for,and that they are consistent with what is contained in the contract;
he said our Administrative Analysists are exceedingly detailed in their work and how our contracts compare
with other jurisdictions, adding that we pay less than more services than other jurisdictions.
Mr. Driskell went over the six items under "F" on pages two and three in his RCA. Concerning the Fire
District,he explained that when we incorporated,we didn't have a contract for police and didn't know what
we were going to do concerning fire; said there were discussions early on in incorporation about continuing
with the fire districts or form our own,and the eventual decision was to annex into the two fire districts;he
said they are separate jurisdictions and we have no authority over them, and we have developed a good
rapport with them over the years. Concerning the law enforcement services,Mr.Driskell explained that the
term of the contract is four years, and if there is no notice of termination from either side, the contract
automatically renews; he said there is an eighteen-month period during which the parties could give notice
of termination, which is between the end of the 30' month and the end of the 48th month, and that during
such period, the Council could decide to undertake all the tasks necessary to bring law enforcement
functions in-house, with those functions including payroll, facility, personnel, finance, legal etc., which
would be an extensive amount of work, so if that were Council's plan, staff would have to determine how
to make it all work,with staff hitting the ground running at the end of that transition period.
Setting up a separate oversight or citizen review committee,Mr.Driskell explained,can be done but he said
he feels more research is needed concerning the liability issues,and said he is actively researching that; he
Council Study Session:04-19-2016 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council:05-10-2016
said there is a potential cause for liability for the City and it would not be unreasonable to think because of
an action or inaction that resulted in death or serious injury, that the CAB would review the reports and
documents provided from the Sheriff's Office but if we set up a separate committee, ours would have
limitations that the CAB doesn't because of the Public Records Act and the need to provide our committee
with police reports,which would probably include redactions; additionally, our committee members would
not be entitled to coroner's reports so we would have competing committees likely rendering differing
opinions. Mr. Eichstaedt stated that the challenge is that there is potential to review the work of an agency
to which Spokane Valley has no hiring or firing decisions in regard to specific officers; said it creates an
advisory role to answer to the City Manager or Council; said he struggled with that and wondered what role
makes sense given that limitation. Mr. Eichstaedt said there has been a lot of concern in the community,
and he mentioned Kathryn Olson, former President of NACOLE (National Association of Civilian
Oversight of Law Enforcement) met with some of the Councilmembers and they recognize there are some
limitations about how the investigatory process is currently working;there are also concerns about potential
liability with an oversight body since such an entity would be created to point out potential wrongs and
could issue findings that could be used in a lawsuit; said having a committee for the benefit of citizens
makes sense, but said we could face some potential liability to ensure the policing we receive is what we
expect and are paying for; said there is already a lot of redundancy in oversight and adding more is not
necessarily a bad thing; that we have the Sheriff's Office internal affairs, the CAB; a team of state patrol,
and others including some federal agencies; sometimes an attorney general can investigate issues; said
redundancy is built-in and it makes sense as we want to make sure the policing is done right; we need to
identify the problems and reduce the future liability while ensuring that citizens trust the government and
the policy. He agreed with the issues concerning the Public Record Act (PRA), and that the committee
would only get what could be publicly released under the PRA.
Mr. Driskell stressed that we recognize appropriate oversight of law enforcement functions is very
important, but the struggle is how to make that work effectively in a contractual relationship;the function
of analyzing and rendering opinions as to the sufficiency from the CAB is a concern from a liability
standpoint within a contract structure; and perhaps Council could have discussions about how important a
citizen oversight committee is, and whether to cancel the contract and take the service in-house; and if we
take the service in-house, Council would need serious, long discussions with Council and the community.
Mr. Driskell said he continues to research these issues.
Council discussion included mention of June 30 as the beginning of that "open window" to terminate;
Councilmember Pace said his original intent was not about whether to terminate or bring services in-house,
and said the intent was never about telling the public safety or agency how to do their jobs, but more of a
mechanism to get feedback, and if we had a committee, Council would direct our committee to avoid
competing opinions. Mr. Driskell stated that tonight's information is an opinion and the idea was to point
out the various considerations for Council to do something or not, and to make sure Council goes into this
fully aware of options, and if Council wants a mission, to make sure that it is a clear mission.
Councilmember Pace said his idea was for this to be an ad hoc committee with a specific mission and
timeframe, of perhaps one year; then Council could decide to continue the committee or not; and said he
will bring this up again tonight during the advance agenda discussion. Mr. Calhoun said that he and Mr.
Driskell discussed this topic and will support any decision Council collectively makes, but need to find a
way to do this without taking on any additional liability or any additional staff; he said it was suggested
this committee would be similar to the Planning Commission, but pointed out we are appropriately staffed
to meet the needs of the Planning Commission and that we have never had this ad hoc committee service;
that it would be a new service and we can do that with existing staff,although it will be yet another demand
on particularly the City Attorney and the Administrative Analysts. Mr. Driskell said that a scope of work
would need to be determined, and we would need to communicate with the Sheriff Office to see if they
would agree with any modification of terms; said the agreement is an interlocal agreement so amendments
can only be made by Council.
Council Study Session:04-19-2016 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council:05-10-2016
Councilmember Hafner said he doesn't want to set the committee before having all the necessary
information and knowing exactly what the responsibilities are with the existing CAB and how they would
remedy any situations.Councilmember Grafos said he feels this is a duplication of what the Sheriffs Office
has; said he feels a committee would weaken the immunity of the City and represents a huge risk; that he
thinks it is a slippery road and we would be going in the wrong direction. Councilmember Gothmann said
a city in Louisiana went through something similar, and eventually had to disband their police department
because of skyrocketing liability insurance costs; said this city was organized to run very efficiently with
low cost, and another layer of government and increasing liability is not a good direction to go; said we
have that lower liability with the Sheriff Office and the County having the liability so it makes sense that
the oversight board would report to the County; said such a committee it would increase the burden on the
attorney's office, and said this is not a wise direction to go. In response to a question from Deputy Mayor
Woodard about negotiating our contract, Mr. Driskell said we negotiate the contract with the Sheriffs
Office but he doesn't know if the CAB has anything to do with our negotiations as they have not been a
part in the past, and that we can unquestionably change items in the contract if desired. Mr. Driskell
reiterated that he doesn't have all the answers and would like to have more information before rendering a
final opinion. There was some discussion about where on an advance agenda to place this issue with
Councilmember Pace suggesting in about a month. Councilmember Pace also said Council is flexible with
the dates for this to come before Council again; he said that saying that such a committee is another layer
of government is political hyperbole, and the same with the inflating insurance costs. Mr. Driskell said he
would prefer at this point to continue the research and present back to Council with his analysis. Council
concurred. Mr. Eichstaedt ended by saying that it is important to define something that makes sense and
serve a role and is a meaningful function while not being overly duplicate.
Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:13 p.m., he reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
3. Port District Update—John Hohman
Community and Economic Development Director Hohman explained that tonight is an opportunity for a
brief update on the port district study, which was conducted through GSI's (Greater Spokane, Inc.)
commission of Maul Foster&Alongi, Inc.;he noted that GSI sought contributions to create a business plan
and we contributed $7500 to the effort; said he has staff participating on the committee which meets about
once a month; said the plan shows there are 75 port districts in Washington,eleven of which are deep water
ports; said the Port Authority is mainly an economic development agency and that GSI is our designated
agency; he said the mission of the Port Authority is to "create economic growth and prosperity in all of
greater Spokane County through the attraction of private sector market investment, which drives the
creation of livable wage jobs." Mr. Hohman explained that this would be a separate government with three
commissioners, similar to the structure of the County government; he briefly explained how ports are
financed, along with the projected budget on pages 16 and 17; said the idea would be to have a very lean
staff of about five, and that they would contract out for a lot of the services; he said staff has submitted
some comments on the information on page 36 seeking clarification on some financial points, like actual
revenues, as in comparing the revenues listed on page 17, the figures seemed aggressive with large
differences between the first and second year of existence; said there were some technical issues and he is
waiting for a revised draft, which might happen this week, and that their next steps would be to try to get
this on a ballot measure, perhaps fall of 2017; there was also some discussion about having a ballot issue
for the establishment of a port district and at the same time determine the commissioners; and said at this
point we are participating on an information level to keep Council appraised of the proposal.
Councilmember Grafos asked if there is a sense of whether this is favorable from other entities, and Mr.
Hohman replied that it is too early to tell; that they are waiting to see what the financial information looks
like and trying to get more detail; he noted that as of now,the Airport has chosen to be outside the district.
Councilmember Pace asked if we have any say whether we participate or not or if the Board of County
Commissioners can put this on the ballot to cover the entire County. Mr. Hohman explained there will be
an opportunity to weigh-in on whether or not to support this and is waiting for the additional information
to help determine an appropriate time to get Council's viewpoint on this issue. Councilmember Pace said
that a port district is an extra layer of government that will cost taxpayers.
Council Study Session:04-19-2016 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council:05-10-2016
4. Review of Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 2.30: Chief of Police—Mark Calhoun
Mr.Calhoun explained that with the June 30,2016 retirement of Police Chief VanLeuven, a new chief will
need to be appointed; that Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 2.30.030 notes that it is the City
Manager who makes the appointment; and that SVMC 2.30.040 states that it is the City Council and City
Manager who confer to establish qualifications for the position, with such qualifications approved by
resolution. Mr. Calhoun noted that Councilmember Pace had asked for this discussion during the April 5
Council meeting, and therefore, Mr. Calhoun has included the attachments of the Code section, the
Resolution,the Police Chief Job Description,and some job description development guidelines in the event
Council desired to revise the job description. Mr. Calhoun noted that interestingly,the Police Chief is not
an employee;and per section 9.1 of the Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement contract,it is the Sheriff
who recommends at least three individuals for the City Manager to choose from, and that those individuals
must be of the rank of Lieutenant or higher. Mr. Calhoun said he has not quite finalized the process for
making a decision from those three recommended to him by the Sheriff.
5. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Pace said he would like the citizen oversight issue to come back to Council in about a
month, and to time that with Mr. Driskell's ability to finish his research and the Deputy City Manager's
work on the bond issue.Deputy Mayor Woodard said that options include doing nothing,seeing if the CAB
(Citizens Advisory Board)could be modified to work more independently,the potential of having a contract
for an as-needed independent,private investigation,and/or report back on the NACOLE final report,which
should be available in a few weeks. Mr. Driskell and Mr. Calhoun said they would work to bring the issue
back in about thirty days, with Council agreeing that the timeline is flexible. Mr. Driskell also mentioned
his continuing concern with the liability issue. It was also agreed that of the issues mentioned in Mr.
Driskell's Request for Council Action form, that the focus should be the impact such a committee would
have on the law enforcement agreement rather than the issues concerning the Fire Districts, or utility
providers.
Other advance agenda items included mention from Mayor Higgins about this Friday's Regional Council
of Governments Meeting at the Fairgrounds,as well as the Kiwanis hosting a helmet painting this Saturday,
also at the Fairgrounds. Councilmember Grafos repeated his desire to have a future agenda topic as soon
as possible,to include discussion about an investigation into the firing of the City Manager.
6. Council Comments—Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Pace mentioned that the official dedication of Spokane Valley Tech school will be held
next Tuesday at 6 p.m., and he has been asked to give a short address, so is asking to be excused from the
next week's Council meeting for the first half hour.
7. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun
Mr. Calhoun mentioned that public works staff are working on the TIGER grant application, and have
submitted the FASTLANE grant application, and he extended thanks to them all for the extra effort in
applying for these grants.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded an unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
ATTES : L.R. Higgins,Mayor
Christine Bainbridge,—City Clerk
Council Study Session:04-19-2016 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council:05-10-2016